About your Search

20130318
20130326
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
the deficit by meaning don't raise revenue are not serious about cutting the deficit. >> neil: even though we've raised revenue, bottom line. >> we should be willing to close tax loopholes if we didn't have a deficit, if we didn't have debt. it's the right thing to do. >> neil: we raised taxes. >> i didn't say raise taxes, i said close loopholes. republicans call closing loopholes raising taxes because it's the rich that have unfair practice. >> neil: have you filled out your brackets? yes or no. have you filled out your brackets? >> no, i haven't done that. i'm going to leave that to the president. he may be late on that too. >> neil: i'm sorry. thank you very much. >> thank you, neil. >> neil: do you remember this? an interview i said senator paul and senator cruz were whacko birds. that's inappropriate and i apologize to them for saying that. >> neil: after that, senator cruz accepted that apology. is senator rand paul about to do the same? and as nevada mourns the death of seven marines, did their senator blame the sequester? meet the military commander telling harry to say i'm sorry. [ m
of the simpson-bowles plan. the plan reduced the deficit through the balance approach that clued additional targets cuts and also revenue from closing a lot of the special interest tax breaks for very wealthy people, tax breaks which mitt romney and paul ryan talked been on the campaign trail. >> neil: they were without raising the overall rate. now we have the rates raised. so republicans talk of a need for a trigger. they might go along with this tax break stuff and all their closing the loopholes, that they did agree it's sort of wasting time and money and the tax code, but you guys have then got to, as part of the trigger, agree simultaneously to these cuts you talked about. what do you make of that? >> well, first of all, the difference is republicans have never said they're willing to close some of those tax loopholes for the purpose of reducing the deficit. which is what the bipartisan -- >> neil: i got a couple on you. i suspect no angel in the ranks of either party. but they did say that they would be open to closing these loopholes but without this being the only negotiating point
's plan calls for us getting out of the deficits in ten years. senator paul said, i can do it in five. what do you think of that? >> i think he could and he has put forward plans in the past that show he can. and like i said, going back to the communication factor. he knows how out of control the government is, whether it's sending money to people who are burning our flag or giving money to college students to come up with a menu how we'll eat on mars, and he has an ability to communicate with young people and voters as a whole what is important and what isn't. and we have seen him become a hybrid. he is a republican but has a libertarian base and ising which that republicans have been striving for but hasn't found the right candidate and right now rand paul looks like he is on his way. >> neil: obviously ruffled john mccain's feathers, and john mccain kind of apologized for how far this went. react to this. >> in an interview i said that senator paul and senator cruz were whack obirds. that was anyone appropriate and i apologize to them for saying that because i respect them both a
taxes. i thought the increased taxes would maybe go to taking care of some of the deficit. no. it's simply going to continually expanding the size and scope of dot government, and those taxes are on families, just like obamacare is placing taxes on family. you do not hear the republican leadership saying we're the defenders of the american family, of businesses. we want to unleash this economy so that it will absolutely grow. by the way, about that easter egg hunt. why, if they're going to haste do they even put it on the tickets they were threatening to stall the whole thing? that would be the first time in the history of the easter egg roll that it would have been cancelled for politics. the only other time it's been cancelled, it's for war. it's a stunning thing but all too justify this administration's temper tantrum over wanting to have a complete free rein to spend as much as they want. >> neil: eggs actually. they don't know. i'm done. i'm done. thank you very much. this will be our lead issue tonight. why this guy who did this dance is really wigging out right now. david w
dollar deficits, no growth, which is true, and we keep having these states with higher taxes and destroying output, it could happen here. it terrifies me. >> what would trigger it would be sharply higher interest rates when people -- in order to buy our debt. not talking about just a few points here but dramatically higher interest rates where it's impossible for us to pay our entire debt load. then becomes a point where we reach financial collapse. >> neil: when people don't trust their financial institution. but when it's your bank bank, your passbook savings account, that is called into question, that galvanizes. then what? >> here's the thing, neil. that almost happened in the past and i think hank paulsen and bernanke and the leadership -- recappallizing the banks was the way to go. in these countries, the banking system is the government. they're so intertwined. we're not there but we're getting there. and remember, once the government -- once they're questions about the sovereign -- sanctity of the dollar, everything falls because our banking system is aligned with our
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5